News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 5.8K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 29K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 2.8K     0 

ssiguy2

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
3,552
Reaction score
1,466
Well UPX is a sort-of Metro style service but with one VERY major exception..........it's diesel. One thing all definitions of Metro have is that they are electric.

Still the UPX is a very cautionary example of what RER could be and if they follow the UPX as an example, RER will be a colossal failure. UPX clearly illustrates that you can greatly improve service on a corridor and offer a faster and more comfortable travel experience but it will result in little new ridership if people can't afford to take it in the first place. RER could be a true game changing service and be a stellar success or an epic failure and it's all going to come down to the fares.

UPX is fast, comfortable, frequent and yet a failure because it doesn't get to the base of the needs of the riding public, accessibility.
 

steveintoronto

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 14, 2016
Messages
10,167
Reaction score
4,339
City:
Toronto
Well UPX is a sort-of Metro style service but with one VERY major exception..........it's diesel. One thing all definitions of Metro have is that they are electric.
By the full definition of a 'metro' it can even be busways.

if they follow the UPX as an example, RER will be a colossal failure.
Verster is clearly indicating a very different approach. The question is whether Verster can impose this radical change of vision on Metrolinx board or not. They're not the most enlightened people...
 

dowlingm

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 8, 2007
Messages
3,844
Reaction score
1,702
Well UPX is a sort-of Metro style service but with one VERY major exception..........it's diesel. One thing all definitions of Metro have is that they are electric.

Still the UPX is a very cautionary example of what RER could be and if they follow the UPX as an example, RER will be a colossal failure. UPX clearly illustrates that you can greatly improve service on a corridor and offer a faster and more comfortable travel experience but it will result in little new ridership if people can't afford to take it in the first place. RER could be a true game changing service and be a stellar success or an epic failure and it's all going to come down to the fares.

UPX is fast, comfortable, frequent and yet a failure because it doesn't get to the base of the needs of the riding public, accessibility.
UPX was not designed to be a metro. It was designed to be an airport shuttle. If it is not ideally suited to the role it was retooled for, that should hardly be surprising.
 

muller877

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 14, 2011
Messages
1,688
Reaction score
756
Well UPX is a sort-of Metro style service but with one VERY major exception..........it's diesel. One thing all definitions of Metro have is that they are electric.

Still the UPX is a very cautionary example of what RER could be and if they follow the UPX as an example, RER will be a colossal failure. UPX clearly illustrates that you can greatly improve service on a corridor and offer a faster and more comfortable travel experience but it will result in little new ridership if people can't afford to take it in the first place. RER could be a true game changing service and be a stellar success or an epic failure and it's all going to come down to the fares.

UPX is fast, comfortable, frequent and yet a failure because it doesn't get to the base of the needs of the riding public, accessibility.

Little new ridership? 3.5 million+ rides a year are expected for 2018 (10,000 per day). How many are new vs existing but its (1) created a lot of new ridership and (2) moved people from the subway (i.e. Yonge line transfer points) onto the rails. And when a real connection to the subway even with the infrequent service this will continue to expand.

RER will likely cost slightly more than the TTC. I hope they have dynamic pricing so they will charge just enough so RER is full but not packed. Maybe $0.50 more to start and then rise or fall quarterly so they have a 90% load factor. Then when they buy more trains/metro's it'll drop again until it is full again.

It's how they should have done UPX to start but instead they charged abnormally high (and now too low which has made it too full to be a premium service)
 

mdrejhon

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 25, 2014
Messages
4,054
Reaction score
2,915
City:
Hamilton
I think, long term, the "within-416" GO RER will eventually equalize with TTC subway.

Fare by distance will still exist on GO, but would eventually cease within the 416 boundaries at some eventual point, after electrification.

The prices are not that far apart, simply keep GO prices the same while wait for inflation-indexed price rises on TTC (through 2025-2030).

I would anticipate that the 416 portion of the GO RER network will get overlaid on all TTC subway maps, network wide, at all TTC subway stations.
 

steveintoronto

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 14, 2016
Messages
10,167
Reaction score
4,339
City:
Toronto
Thameslink first with ATO over ETCS
20 Mar 2018
UK: Working with Network Rail and Siemens,commuter operator Govia Thameslink Railway has successfully operated its first passenger-carrying train using ATO over ETCS Level 2.

On March 17 a southbound eight-car Thameslink train to Three Bridges operated automatically through the cross-city core between St Pancras, Farringdon, City Thameslink and London Blackfriars, transitioning into ETCS Level 2 on its approach from Kentish Town and back to conventional signalling between Blackfriars and Elephant & Castle.

GTR is using Grade of Automation 2, with the driver checking the platforms, closing the doors and initiating departure from each station. The Siemens-built Class 700 EMU ran between stops using the ATO and cab signalling, opening the doors automatically at the next station.

‘This is a real “world first” and I’m delighted’, said GTR’s Systems Integration Manager Jim Doughty. ‘It is the culmination of a programme which has been running continuously since the start of the £7bn Thameslink Programme. This cutting-edge system will allow us to run our high-intensity Thameslink service of up to 24 trains/h each way, offering 70% more seats through the centre of London’.

The project partners have run nearly 200 night and day shifts of testing since April 2016 when dynamic proving trials began at Network Rail’s ETCS National Integration Facility at Hertford North. Testing of ATO over ETCS started in November of that year. ETCS Level 2 has been overlaid on the conventional lineside signalling through the Thameslink core, with short blocks allowing trains to operate at closer headways.

GTR has had to demonstrate to regulator ORR that it has amended its Health & Safety Management System to operate trains in passenger service using both ETCS and ATO. It has also started a comprehensive driver training programme ready for the launch of full ATO working between St Pancras and Blackfriars at 22 trains/h from May 2019 and through to London Bridge from December 2019.

Network Rail’s Project Director for High Capacity Infrastructure, Martin Chatfield, said ‘seeing the first UK mainline train running in ATO for passenger services is a truly momentous day for the Thameslink Programme and the wider industry teams involved. This underlines the combined efforts of NR, the supply chain, and the train operators over the past five years.’

Read our comprehensive article about the installation of ETCS and ATO through the Thameslink core in the September 2015 issue of Railway Gazette International magazine, available to subscribers in our digital archive.

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/...view/thameslink-first-with-ato-over-etcs.html

And in Ontario, let alone Toronto? It remains a theory...

vid here:
 

crs1026

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 17, 2014
Messages
8,050
Reaction score
13,611
And in Ontario, let alone Toronto? It remains a theory...

I'm sure that when we get nearer to 24 trains/hr in Ontario we will install the same. Certainly, TTC is well along towards that.

I don't see that any of the RER proposals coming in anywhere close to even half that frequency.

Wait 20 years until it's needed.

- Paul
 

steveintoronto

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 14, 2016
Messages
10,167
Reaction score
4,339
City:
Toronto
I'm sure that when we get nearer to 24 trains/hr in Ontario we will install the same. Certainly, TTC is well along towards that.

I don't see that any of the RER proposals coming in anywhere close to even half that frequency.

Wait 20 years until it's needed.

- Paul
[...]
As part of the GO expansion component of Metrolinx's Regional Transportation Plan, Metrolinx plans to modernize the system by adding stations, increasing system capacity, introducing 25-kV catenary electrification and replacing its diesel locomotives with electrified locomotives, adapting its existing fixed-block signaling system to the 25-kV traction power supply system, and deploying ETCCS on the wayside and rolling stock.

This program "will transform the GO Transit rail network with electrified trains running every 15 minutes or better, all day and in both directions, within the most heavily travelled sections of the GO network across Ontario's Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA), home to nearly 7 million people and one of the largest and fastest-growing urban regions in North America," the agency said.

As Metrolinx specifies, procures and deploys ETCCS with conventional signaling upgrades, Parsons will provide design, procurement support, system engineering, system integration and migration management, testing and commissioning services.
[...]
Wednesday, November 22, 2017
Parsons secures Metrolinx ETCCS tech services contract

If Thameslink, Crossrail, Paris RER, DB, and many others can run trains on a pair of tracks close or at every two minutes, think how much they save on not having to build four or more tracks through main stations, let alone on lines...

And in Thameslink's case, do it ATO...

Twenty years sound about right...
 

generalcanada

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 20, 2020
Messages
497
Reaction score
988
posting here:

Alstom will also upgrade the existing GO Transit BiLevel rolling stock, signalling systems, telecommunications systems,

Alstom’s turnkey approach and integrated offering capitalises on its global system knowledge and portfolio of solutions to offer state-of-the-art solutions, such as Alstom’s ERTMS[1] train control system, which will be introduced for the first time to the North America market.

So ERTMS, is the european signaling standard. apperently its positive train control according to wikipedia
 

reaperexpress

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 20, 2009
Messages
2,524
Reaction score
3,738
Continued from Electrification thread

The ERTMS - european rail traffic management system signaling sounds interesting. whatever it is, its goig to be the first time in north america
30 trains per hour on a single track? jezuz.
so its just an open signaling standard using PTC? rather whats the difference between PTC, ATC, and CBTC

That was literally an exam question in a course I took on railway signalling, so here goes:

PTC and ATC are part of the spectrum from ATP to ATO, which describe different levels of automation.

ATP is Automatic Train Protection. This is when a signal system monitors the train and intervenes if it violates any signal aspects (e.g. overspeed, passing red signal), but the trains are otherwise fully manually operated. I'm not familiar with the American PTC standard, but I believe it is a form of ATP.
ATC is Automatic Train Control. The signal system can pretty much drive the train, but it still requires some level of driver input. This is what we have on Line 1.
ATO is Automatic Train Operation. The trains can fully operate themselves, and if there is an operator they just monitor the system and/or do busy work like closing the doors. This is what we have on Line 3.

CBTC is Communications-Based Train Control. In general that means that there's continuous two-way communication (usually radio) between trains and the control centre, with movement authority (permission to proceed across a given segment of track within a given speed profile) issued continuously. This is pretty much a prerequisite for moving-block signalling, which is the main reason it gets implemented.

ERTMS is the European Rail Traffic Management system, which is the umbrella term for railway control standards in the EU.
The railway signalling component of ERTMS is called ETCS (European Train Control System). Extremely important to note: ETCS is not a particular signalling system! It is a set of EU standards which be used for a wide variety of signalling systems, from low-capacity to high-capacity. ETCS is divided into Levels of increasing complexity & capacity. Level 1 is a fairly ordinary system, Level 3 is the first level which includes the 2-way communication required for moving block signalling. The vast majority of ETCS systems are Level 1 or Level 2, and means that they cannot support moving block signalling, and the impressive capacity associated with it.


Why couldnt the TTC use [ETCS] for the subways?
This is roughly the topic of an assignment from that course (what's the difference between CBTC and ERTMS). ETCS Level 3 is technically a CBTC system, but when I say CBTC I'm referring to proprietary metro signalling systems such as the one the TTC installed on Line 1.

Excerpt from an assignment of mine:
5 Comparison of CBTC and ERTMS

The characteristics of CBTC include a considerable overlap with those of the European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS) and its signalling subsystem European Traffic Control System (ETCS). ERTMS is the railway control standard developed by the European Union Agency of Railways to replace the different and often incompatible national signalling systems currently used in different member countries. Although the primary goal of ERTMS is to improve compatibility between countries, a secondary goal is also to increase railway capacity much like CBTC. As a result, the two systems will be compared with the goal of identifying ways in which the implementation of ERTMS could make use of lessons or characteristics from CBTC.
ETCS standards are divided into Levels, which are system architectures with varying levels of support for capacityimprovement features such as moving-block control and continuous ATP. Level 1 represents a relatively traditional architecture, with wayside-based train detection and intermittent communication to trains. But higher ETCS levels begin to incorporate features associated with CBTC. Level 2 includes continuous radio communication with the radio block centre, although it still relies on wayside equipment for redundant train detection and vehicle integrity monitoring. Level 3 represents fully communication-based train control where vehicle position and movement authorities are continuously monitored via radio communication (GSM-R) and it is therefore theoretically possible to implement moving-block signalling.

5.1 Defintions

With so many technical similarities between CBTC and ETCS Level 3, in order to compare the two systems, each needs to be specifically defined.
For the sake of comparison, the definition of CBTC will be as per IEEE specification 1474.1, namely a train protection and control system with a high precision for train location, and both onboard and wayside processors which manage movement authorities. In addition, CBTC systems will be assumed to include moving blocks and automatic train operation (ATO) because although they are not strictly part of the definition of CBTC, access to those features are typically driving factors behind new implementations of CBTC [1].
In general, CBTC tends to operate on more self-contained railway lines such as metro, light rail or occasionally commuter rail lines, whereas ERTMS is designed for the European mainline rail network where there is a full range of train types and services. However since this distinction is not structural in nature, it will not be in itself considered part of
the definitions of the respective signalling systems.
Some characteristics of ETCS and CBTC are outlined in Table 1 and described in the following subsections.

3.JPG
 

Attachments

  • 2.JPG
    2.JPG
    74.3 KB · Views: 290
  • 1.JPG
    1.JPG
    102.9 KB · Views: 289
Last edited:

reaperexpress

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 20, 2009
Messages
2,524
Reaction score
3,738
Continuation of that same article below (I actually ran into the UT character limit - that's never happened to me before).

5.2 Interoperability
A fundamental difference between ERTMS and CBTC standards is the way in which interoperability is incorporated. One of the primary goals of developing an European Rail Traffic Management System was to eliminate equipment incompatibilities between different EU member states, and as such the specifications for ETCS levels require standardised communication formats which allow different components of the signalling system to be sourced from different manufacturers. In contrast, there is little provision for interoperability in CBTC specifications, and installations are typically proprietary to the point that each system component must be sourced from the same supplier of the signal system as a whole. In terms of interoperability, ERTMS is clearly superior to CBTC, since the latter one is not usually designed while considering interoperability as one of its main features. Therefore, characteristics of CBTC could be improved based on the experience from ERTMS. In particular a standardised format could be introduced for vehicle-to-wayside communications, to allow for different suppliers between components. Indeed for the implementation of CBTC in the New York Subway, the infrastructure owner (the MTA) worked with Siemens and Thales to develop standardised specifications for CBTC in New York which would allow different companies to supply components for New York lines, and the interoperability was succesfully tested using Mitsubishi equipment.

5.3 Capacity
Although both ERTMS and CBTC are both intended to improve line capacity compared to traditional signalling systems, they differ in the amount of capacity they provide.
One of the most significant features used by CBTC to increase capacity is moving block technology. ETCS Level 3 is also technically capable of introducing moving block-operation but even so CBTC would still provide shorter minimum headways than ERTMS due to the fact that CBTC’s radio communications are faster than the GSM-R communications system mandated by the ERTMS specifications, and can therefore provide more frequent updates to and from trains. A downside of CBTC with respect to ERTMS is the existence of conflict points, like unlocked switches and stops. Under CBTC rules, no movement authority can be assigned to a train beyond a conflict point. Therefore, conflict points are capacity bottlenecks for CBTC systems. This is one of the reasons behind the dominance of CBTC in metro and suburban lines and ERTMS in main lines.

5.4 Implementation history
The maturity of the technologies is another important aspect when considering implementing either CBTC or ERTMS. While CBTC has a long history of implementing moving-block operation and several grades of automation, like ATO, DTO and UTO, moving block signalling and automatic train operations are still under development for ERTMS and are not widely implemented.

5.5 Rolling stock flexibility
The primary goal of ERTMS has been to provide a safe, interoperable train operation, not only between trains from different countries, but also different types of trains within the same country, including anywhere from freight trains which may lack on-board vehicle integrity monitoring, to high-speed trains which require sufficiently long movement authorities to safely operate at 320 km/h.
In contrast, CBTC implementations tend to be designed for relatively insular and homogenous systems such as metros and commuter rail lines, where it is designed taking into account the types of rolling stock that will operate on the line. On the other hand, ERTMS is more flexible, as the signalling system does not have to be tailored according to the train and track characteristics, but to predefined standards.

5.6 Implementing CBTC or ERTMS?
The choice between CBTC or ERTMS in re-signalling projects is currently a dilemma for infrastructure managers. Some examples of past choices are described below.

A tunnel connecting Madrid’s two high-speed railway hubs, Chamartín and Atocha, was built in 2008 to increase the capacity between the two stations. ERTMS Level 2 was implemented for several reasons. The main factor was the Spanish ERTMS implementation strategy. Spain has a wide experience on ERTMS implementation, with over 1850km of track equipped with ERTMS. Moreover, ERTMS L1 was already implemented at the branches connected to that line. The capacity requirement for the commuter trains between these two hubs was not very demanding, as at least 17 trains per hour (TPH) was required, with a potential increase up to 24 TPH.

London’s Crossrail is a high-capacity suburban railway under construction that will allow commuter trains to cross London from West to East. In this project, a CBTC with ATO will be implemented even though the line is part of the national railway network, because ETCS Level 2 cannot provide the train capacity needed in the near future, which will be up to 30 TPH, and ERTMS L3 has not yet been proven in high-frequency service. The fact that CBTC is a widely established technology and it has more proven experience on high-capacity metro operation took also an important role in the decision.

London's Thameslink is a high-capacity commuter line which travels through the centre of London, perpendicular to Crossrail. ETCS Level 2 with ATO was implemented in this project, since the demanded capacity was not too high and, like in Madrid’s project, this line has some connections with the railway network in which ERTMS was already implemented. The decision, however, did not rely on the technical factors exclusively. It was taken according to the UK ERTMS implementation strategy and external stakeholders.

The EOLE project in Paris extended a commuter rail line. The maturity of CBTC technology and the extra capacity that CBTC is able to provide in comparison to ETCS Level 2 forced the decision to implement CBTC as the signalling system for this infrastructure.

Istanbul’s Marmaray suburban line consists of a triple-tracked line. One track is incorporated into the mainline and has low capacity requirements. ETCS L1 was implemented there, while in the two remaining tracks, both CBTC and ETCS L1 were implemented, with CBTC being used for commuter trains and the ETCS for freight trains, and as a backup for the passenger trains.

In general, CBTC is typically chosen over ETCS Level 2 due to the extra capacity that it may provide, particularly given that Level 3 is not yet well-proven. The maturity of CBTC technology is also considered to be one of the advantages of CBTC over ERTMS. In contrast, ERTMS is the preferred option for infrastructure managers when they have experience on ERTMS implementation and when the considered line is closely integrated into the mainline network.
 
Last edited:

mdrejhon

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 25, 2014
Messages
4,054
Reaction score
2,915
City:
Hamilton
posting here:



So ERTMS, is the european signaling standard. apperently its positive train control according to wikipedia

Yes, that’s correct (in a roundabout way).

However, ERTMS is a set of standards for literally 21st century technology, decades ahead of good old fashioned PTC.

I find this fantastic news, because we’re leapfrogging far past the USA mainline signalling systems here.

ERTMS, if all features are implemented, is capable of moving block operation (level 3), which can allow GO to cram metro frequencies on their main corridors — subway style. Basic PTC, a tiny subset of ERTMS, cannot do that by itself.

The PTC line-item is 1960s-1970s tech compared to the current set of standards for ERTMS Level 3 which encompasses 20th and 21st century Euro rail signalling and control technology, much of it more well-integrated and well-tested than the fiasco in California….
 
Last edited:

generalcanada

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 20, 2020
Messages
497
Reaction score
988
Yes, that’s correct (in a roundabout way).

However, ERTMS is a set of standards for literally 21st century technology, decades ahead of good old fashioned PTC.

I find this fantastic news, because we’re leapfrogging far past the USA mainline signalling systems here.

ERTMS, if all features are implemented, is capable of moving block operation (level 3), which can allow GO to cram metro frequencies on their main corridors — subway style. Basic PTC, a tiny subset of ERTMS, cannot do that by itself.

The PTC line-item is 1960s-1970s tech compared to the current set of standards for ERTMS Level 3 which encompasses 20th and 21st century Euro rail signalling and control technology, much of it more well-integrated and well-tested than the fiasco in California….
what california fiasco?
 

reaperexpress

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 20, 2009
Messages
2,524
Reaction score
3,738
Google CBOSS
Wikipedia says "Originally, Caltrain employed Parsons Transportation to develop a custom PTC system, called CBOSS, for CalMod, but due to delays, Caltrain switched to Wabtec and their I-ETMS system."

Everything to do with California rail expansions seems to end in fiasco, largely due to repeated attempts to reinvent the wheel. From what little we've seen so far, it looks like DB and Alstom are playing it safe by proposing proven equipment and technologies, which should save us headaches in the future, as long as Transport Canada doesn't force them to adapt systems to meet the arbitrary differences between TC regulations and EU regulations.

My biggest question is whether Alstom will propose ETCS Level 2 or Level 3. Level 2 has been in service for decades on many lines across Europe, but it doesn't support moving blocks. Level 3 can theoretically provide up to 30 tph on a single track, but it's less proven - when I wrote that assignment there weren't any systems fully in operation yet. There are also challenges related to its purely communication-based nature, primarily related to other trains which need to share the tracks.

In its purest form, ETCS L3 doesn't require any wayside detection equipment (e.g. axle counters, track circuits), which in theory makes it cheaper to maintain than L2 or L1. But in order to achieve that, all trains on the line need to have train integrity monitors. That means that the train itself needs to confirm that the train is still in one piece, and a coupler didn't break, leaving a car sitting on the line behind. This is fairly straightforward for passenger trains, but would be a large ask for freight operators given that freight cars roam around the continent, and therefore virtually all cars on the continent would need to be retrofitted. Although CN no longer owns the core rail network in Toronto, they do still have trackage rights, and do therefore have some influence on the decisions related to signal systems.

To overcome these limitations, ProRail (Dutch railway operator) has proposed to use an ETCS Hybrid L3 system where instead of moving blocks, they would use micro blocks. Each physical block would be divided into many virtual blocks, which would be used by (passenger) trains equipped with integrity monitoring. The (freight) trains which lack monitoring would only have access to the larger physical blocks, using the wayside integrity monitors. Given that moving blocks would only get updated every 10 seconds or so anyway, this provides nearly the same capacity for passenger trains as a moving-block L3 system, while reducing equipment requirements for freight operators. The fact that the micro-blocks match up with the physical blocks makes it much easier to overlay the physical and virtual movement authorities than with a system which combines moving blocks for passenger trains with fixed blocks for freight trains.

To cut on maintenance costs, ProRail also suggests that the physical block sizes could be increased compared to today, since the freight trains can be scheduled during times when line capacity is not critical. Doubling the physical block size cuts the amount of detection equipment in half.
 
Last edited:

Top